Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another 787 Fire this time at LHR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Well, on the evening news, they said that Ethiopian Airlines has no plans to ground their 787s.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by B757300 View Post
      Could be something as simple as someone left something on in the galley for hours on end, or a short in the galley. A bad .50 cent wire is all it takes sometime.

      And I would think, since the 787 is assembled in sections, that they could remove the back section and replace it. I assume it is under warranty.
      Makes me wonder what the standard warranty is on a 787? Anything that costs that much better have a decent warranty.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Even if the batteries had nothing to do, if it was any fault related to the plane's design or construction, it will be an awful impact for the already deteriorated 787 and Boeing's public images.
        Couldn't agree more sir.
        I DO think the main electrical bus / distribution systems are highly suspect here.
        From AAIB UK -
        The UK's Air Accidents Investigation Branch said the initial investigation was likely to take several days.
        It said it had found "extensive heat damage in the upper portion of the rear fuselage, a complex part of the aircraft".
        "However, it is clear that this heat damage is remote from the area in which the aircraft main and APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) batteries are located and at this stage there is no evidence of a direct causal relationship."
        "a direct causal realtionship", hmmmm....
        and
        "a complex part of the aircraft"

        Roughly translated - "we cannot identify the issue at the moment due to all the damage and masses of wires and other crap packed into that area...."

        and

        "We still think it is electrical, and a serious issue - but dont want to point fingers at the batteries and add fuel to the fire "

        Now, tongue in cheek,
        Some are looking at the possibility of a surface to surface missile causing the issue as in TWA 800.... yeah...... ooops, was that not faulty wiring too ?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by snydersnapshots View Post
          According to Boeing spokesman Wi Fuk Dup (I verified his name through the NTSB), Boeing is very quietly bringing more of the 787 production "in-house" on the 787-9 and 787-10.


          (Actually, this info came from friends who are very close to Boeing)
          funny, i heard his name was Hugh McMeehawt.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jt325i View Post
            Makes me wonder what the standard warranty is on a 787? Anything that costs that much better have a decent warranty.
            I think it's 5 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              I think it's 5 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first.
              Is that bumper to bumper? Wonder if they try to sell scotch-guarding the seats and rust proofing the hull at an extra cost?

              Comment


              • #37
                The same warranty as the 380's wings and Power plants.
                Who's on first?..........

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Strange........ Boeing must certainly know by now whether the fire is related to the aircraft systems or is due to third party issues or something beyond their control. If it is not related to previous electrical woes, I think they would want to release that info to the press ASAP to stop the share price bleeding. THe longer they withhold information on this incident, the more I suspect it is not going to help them sell Dreamliners.
                  Short term bleeding of the share price doesn't impact them at all so they won't care about that. They will care about sales though, so they need to find out exactly what happened to be able to spin it properly.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Investigators are looking into whether an emergency locator transmitter built by Honeywell was one possible cause of Friday’s fire in a Boeing 787 operated by Ethiopian Airlines, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing several anonymous sources.

                    The transmitter is located in the upper rear part of the 787, according to the report, a different location than the battery pack that was at the root of the lithium-ion battery meltdowns that grounded the global fleet of Dreamliners for several months earlier this year.

                    Safety regulators are looking at the device, which Reuters said uses a lithium manganese battery, as one possible cause of the fire.

                    Honeywell did not immediately respond to FOX Business for a comment, however, a spokesman confirmed to the Journal that the company was “invited to participate in the investigation” and has sent technical experts to London's Heathrow to assist authorities.

                    http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...87-fire-probe/

                    We'll see if this is ends up being the cause, or if the media ends up with egg on its face once again.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by B757300 View Post
                      We'll see if this is ends up being the cause, or if the media ends up with egg on its face once again.
                      From what I've seen, investigators are seriously looking into the ELT as a possible cause. It doesn't mean it is the culprit, it's just a possibility. Honeywell has already stated it is early to draw conclusions, and that their products have been used for years.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                        From what I've seen, investigators are seriously looking into the ELT as a possible cause. It doesn't mean it is the culprit, it's just a possibility. Honeywell has already stated it is early to draw conclusions, and that their products have been used for years.
                        It could be something as simple as a defective unit, but not because of a design flaw. Working in IT, I've seen just the random electronic device that spectacularly fails, but thousands of identical ones work fine for their entire service life without an issue.

                        We'll know soon enough if this was the culprit, but it would make sense given the location.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Interesting. Has there ever been a fire in any other airliner that was caused by the emergency locator transmitter?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by UALdave View Post
                            Interesting. Has there ever been a fire in any other airliner that was caused by the emergency locator transmitter?
                            I would say no. I think this type of ELT has been used since 2005. It could always be that the 787 was VERY unlucky and got the first one, or it could be an issue with the way it is mounted on the 787. Or it could have something to do with the wiring on the 787, or possibly the ELT is not a factor at all.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
                              It could always be that the 787 was VERY unlucky and got the first one, or it could be an issue with the way it is mounted on the 787. Or it could have something to do with the wiring on the 787, or possibly the ELT is not a factor at all.
                              You mean that it might have been or not, but most likely is maybe?

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I think it probably either was or wasn't. Maybe.

                                Slightly more on-topic, IMHO the argument "X has been in use since YYYY and has never caused Z" is just plain silly. The space shuttle never exploded until it exploded...
                                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                                Eric Law

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X